Friedrich Nietzsche

The immoralist

Michał
Gomułka
 Page |2

“Every hazard is permitted… The sea, our sea, lies open there. Perhaps there has

never been so open a sea” (Nietzsche). Friedrich Nietzsche gives as a new perspective of

so called “morality” (good and evil), where the hopeless and weak are the ones with

morality, and ones without it are the superior race. He calls himself an immoralist, and by

others has been called a “bad boy of ethics.” Christianity or even values that our society

values such as charity are despised and put down by Nietzsche as an obstacle to

happiness. Morality according to him is just another human invention to protect and

support the weak. In this analysis I will focus on the “madman story”, “zarathustra”,

“science of morals”, twilight of the idols” and “antichrist”. In order to form a conception

of what Nietzsche is trying to do by putting morality down, one must understand that to

him it is the strong that win not the weak.

“The madman” is a story portraying a person walking in daylight into a market

place screaming “Where is God...we have killed him-you and I.” This “bad boy” of ethics

has a message that he is trying to pass, but people won’t just listen. While I was reading

it, I realized that not only is he promoting total freedom, but basically says that morals do

not exist anymore. It is not said literally, but one can imagine that if God is “dead” there

is no longer good and evil, sin, reward or punishment. Not only that but he says that we

need to become like gods in order to redeem ourselves from the fact that we have killed

god. (MGL 375). Of course this is an analogy and is not supposed to be taken to heart,

but it is clearly seen that we cannot do anything about it. More than that, Nietzsche

becomes a little sarcastic when he says “What festival of atonement, what sacred games

shall we have to invent?”(MGL 375). What better argument than this one, to prove that

religious rituals such as mass, festivals of saints etc, are just an excuse, an invention of
 Page |3

“man” to secure their weakness and vulnerability. Then he goes on describing churches

and what they really are now, since “God is dead”. They are just graves and cemeteries,

places of “dead worship”. He talks about “giving style”. Madman is just a character that

Nietzsche invented which in reality is telling us what the writer wants. “We need to attain

satisfaction with ourselves” says the madman, through art, poetry etc. It takes an

“overman” to attain such qualities I would argue with Nietzsche. Yet it is not about

attaining, but “making”. If you are weak and helpless forget about becoming someone,

but if you are strong, self-centered or proud; this is your scene to make it happen. As to

the madman, I do not think he really is mad. It is the so called “herd” that perceived him

as mad, because a fool will always be a fool.

“Zarathustra” is a prophet from ancient Persia. He has started a religion called

“Zoroastrianism”. This was the religion of Sumerians, people from ancient Babylon. This

was also one of the first religions with a concept of good and evil. In this particular exert

from “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”, Nietzsche gives as a concept totally opposite to the

Bible. Again Zarathustra is just a fictional character which plainly speaks out the

thoughts and ideas of its author. It starts out similarly as with the “madman” where the

prophet enters a town and starts preaching. He teaches the townspeople about the

“overman”. “Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome

him?” (MGL 377). It is a difficult concept because not only is he asking an indirect

question, but a question that requires thought. Plainly speaking if you want to be great

and powerful, you need to overcome yourself and get rid of everything you ever thought

was human such as: charity, love, peace etc. Again Nietzsche is not against peace, he is

for it. But in order to have it, the strong must rule the world.
 Page |4

In the Bible (New Testament) in the gospel of Matthew, there is a sermon on the

mount where Jesus gives the “beatitudes”. Meek, peacemakers, pure in heart etc, are

qualities that God is looking for. To Nietzsche, these qualities are a “stumbling stone”.

Seems as a paradox, but the Bible says that to those that reject Jesus, he will be a

stumbling block to. And to those who believe, he will be a savior. Moving right along

Zarathustra doesn’t waste time describing humans. If you think you are smarter than an

ape you are wrong. In fact you are as much as stupid as the ape is or worst. Happiness,

reason, virtue, justice and pity are qualities that keep us from truly living; according to

Nietzsche. “Is not pity the cross on which he is nailed who loves man? But my pity is no

crucifixion” (MGL 377). Alas, here is a man to whom Christ became a stumbling block.

Nietzsche concludes that Christianity is a weakness. How can my savior be nailed to the

cross? He sees that as a weakness, sign of pity. He clearly says that his pity is no

crucifixion. He sees weakness as a stumbling block, something that keeps you away from

truly being human. Again the whole sea is “ours” and we should explore it, says the “bad

boy” of ethics.

Anyways so who is this overman? “He is the lightning, he is this frenzy” (MGL

378). So now we are given a definition of the “overman”. Seems vague to me, but on the

other hand I’m astounded. You might ask me why? Well it seems to me as if there is a

hidden message behind the “Zarathustra”. “Going or go under” is a phrase repeated

throughout the citation. If I wouldn’t know better seems as if the overman is Satan, prince

of the darkness who wants to take “the last man” with him. You might say a “vague

assumption”, right? Well it was worth trying because before human race rejected God,

Satan already had. Nietzsche is a great philosopher, but I think he is a greater poet and
 Page |5

story writer. He just entertains me. I feel as if I was reading Chaucer or Shakespeare, only

without the “thou” and “thee”. So what is the whole concept of the “overman” and the

“last man”? How about master and slave? Superior and inferior? As for me it will be a

one way race. “No shepherd and one herd” (MGL 380). Our storyteller is trying to tell us

that we are one humongous herd without a shepherd. While reading the introduction to

“Thus spoke Zarathustra”, it said that Nietzsche tried to write it like a Bible. In a way I

can see why people think that. I like this concept of one herd and no shepherd. Because in

the Bible it says that Jesus is a shepherd and we are the herd (flock). To make it even

more visible I can imagine this Zarathustra guy standing in an assembly and preaching,

and thousands of people yelling and rejecting his message. At the end he says “But

Zarathustra became sad and said to his heart: “They do not understand me…” (MGL

380). How many times do we here great leaders and thinkers say that? Because the

people live with a herd mentality, wanting more money or whatever suites their mind.

Thus Nietzsche makes a great point, only I have read it in Isaiah hundredths of time

“These people have ears but do not hear, these people have eyes but do not see” (Isaiah

6:9).

“Science of morals” is what Nietzsche calls morality. People have turned it into a

“study of”. Ever heard of biology or psychology? Logy means study of, thus how about

“moralogy” instead of morality? By the way, I did not suggest this, Nietzsche did. To

make a long story short he takes all the philosophers and their teaching and classifies

them as science teachers. They teach what suites ones happiness. For example in

Christianity the poor are promised all the riches. But what about the rich? The rich are

left out which leaves the weak as “the king of the hill”. Again to Nietzsche if you are
 Page |6

weak, you are nothing. Only the strong, self-centered, prideful can rule in this world. But

this is not the main point. The main point is that morality became like a topic that can

actually be thought and written down. It became an invention which could change every

day and could shine in different colors every time you would see it. But he says that it is

not so. We need to be open to the concept of good and evil, and then we will really live.

When I was reading Nietzsche at first I was kind of aggressive toward him and his ideas.

But the more I read of him, I realized that he really is not a “bastard” but rather a

visionary. He sees life as an opportunity, and whatever a human can teach you it better be

about strengths, because in this world only the strong survive. And it hit me just about

now! Nietzsche is totally so right! If I was to take God out of my head, everything he

says makes sense. Thus his concept is for the world, not me. Although I like his stories,

they really do entertain me.

“Twilight of the Idols” is basically a rejection of Christianity. Nietzsche thinks

that it is stupidity to pluck ones eye in order to avoid sin. He probably is right because

something such as sin does not exist to him. Churches live a hostile life because they

prevent their members from functioning properly (MGL 404). He basically says that it is

stupidity and hostility to live a life where you “surrender” yourself to someone like God.

He says that if you want it, you should go and get it. Again we meet the concept of

“ought” and “should and should not”. He does not like to be told what to do. I do not

blame him, I don’t either. But one difference between his and mine “being told is” that he

disobeys because he is prideful; I disobey because it keeps me away from being who I

was not supposed be. This is a concept of yes and no. Hot and cold, wet dry etc. Finally

he says “Man ought to be different” (MGL 405). I totally agree with him. Most people
 Page |7

are prideful, self-centered, etc. There is only a minority of people who value meekness,

charity, and humility. Man ought to be different. He says that we can’t be given our

qualities, purpose etc. In reality he says there is no end (MGL 406). If I knew better I

would disagree on that. If I think as a realistic person I would expect one day to die. Thus

end right there, unless you believe in afterlife, but that can’t happen if you reject God. So

I see Nietzsche struggling with himself, with the concept of morality, because on one

hand he wants to make it something that you should not learn and be thought, but on the

other hand he is doing the very same thing. “Moral judgments are never to be taken

literally” (MGL 406). So remember he says, whatever you hear don’t always practice it,

it is meant for later.

“The Antichrist” is another story aiming to show how really weak Christianity is.

“Life itself is to my mind the instinct for growth, for durability, for accumulation of

forces, for power: where the will to power is lacking there is decline” (MGL 407) In

other words if you are weak you won’t make it in this world. Christian morality won’t get

you through this world. Again Nietzsche is 100% right. It is not meant to get you through

this life, but to get you to the real life. Again he is saying that weakness is bad and that

only strong make it in this world. Seems to me that the whole world is packed with such

people, it is hard to find people who aim for weakness. But again whatever makes me

weak only makes me stronger, Apostle Paul said. To those perishing cross is foolishness,

but to the living it is the life boat.

And at last we have “The Will to Power”. Be strong, proud and haughty, says

Nietzsche. Again we have the concept of the survival of the strongest. This time our

“storyteller” becomes more alive, vibrant I might say. Herd is opposed to the strong, the
 Page |8

herd is opposed to happy and well constituted, and at last the herd is opposed to

exceptions (MGL 408). Nietzsche sees humanity as a herd, same way Socrates said. Yet

his perception is a little more different. Qualities that he rejects, western philosophy finds

as appealing. Even at one time Thomas Aquinas said that Christianity could be explained

as philosophy, because it makes sense; thus he wrote Summa Theologia. Only self

succession should be the key to happiness. When you are strong and powerful, you can

have anything you want in this world. Nietzsche also says that the strong should help the

weak not out of pity but of “duty”, seems to me like someone read a whole lot o

Immanuel Kant. Concept of duty is a key on this subject because the strong consider duty

as valuable. Nietzsche says that the herd wants to preserve one kind of a man. Looking at

the fact that he was born in the 19th century, things might have been different there.

People valued morality more, and found charity as a value. But today in the 21st century,

money and prestige is all that people want. It is all “about me”. Nietzsche would probably

enjoy living in this age because his way of thinking seems to dominate this world. Power

is the concept, and values of Christianity are less valued and ridiculed. What Nietzsche

wrote once about came true in this decade.

In conclusion Nietzsche does not try to justify ethics but analyze it. His concept of

thinking is way different from all of the other philosophers because he does not have a

concept. He sees the strong as the superman and weak as the herd. Christianity for

example is a weakness to him. Qualities such as pride he values. “The more dangerous a

quality seems to the herd, the more completely it is condemned” (Nietzsche).